Not wishing to fan the flames here, but this issue of tolerance is being
used to bludgeon a lot of people and institutions.  If we take the
dictionary definitions:

tolerance; noun.  Liberality toward the opinions of others; patience with
others.

tolerant; adjective.  Forbearing; patient with the ideas or acts of others.

I think we can agree that everyone should be tolerant of others (since no
two people are the same).  However, what most people forget is that
tolerance is a two-way street.  If I expect you to be tolerant of my
beliefs, then you should be able to expect me to be tolerant of your
beliefs.  But we see many demanding tolerance, and seemingly incapable of
tolerating any other viewpoint other than their own.  There are a lot of
people of faith that hold sincere beliefs that conflict with society in
general and with certain "politically correct" agendas being promoted today;
however, a lot of people are intolerant of those sincerely held beliefs.

In the case in point (the Idaho HP employee and the posters), HP (or any
other employer) has every right to promote whatever it is that they believe
in.  If you as an employee (or as a customer) don't agree, well, you're free
to seek employment elsewhere (or spend your money elsewhere).  However, when
you mix in religious overtones, then the water becomes muddy indeed.  The
role of religion in the workplace, once taken for granted, is becoming a
morass of rules and regulations.  As employers try to take the middle road,
it increasingly becomes the muddle road.  There have been abuses on both
sides:  employers have forbidden employees from reading the Bible during
lunch hour (which is a clear violation of the employee's rights to free
expression of religion), and employers have required employees to attend
mandatory prayer meetings (another clear violation of the employee's
rights).  Now whether the HP employee had a "right" to display his poster
depends on the employer's policy.  I have seen policies that prohibit
posting of any material except for employer-approved material.  In such a
case, any employee who posts something on his own, regardless of viewpoint,
is clearly in the wrong.

For another, more extreme case, look at the law suit pending against NAMBLA
over their web site (and its content).  Is that free speech?  Should society
be required to be tolerant of such people?

There are no easy answers to these questions.

Jim Phillips